Ex parte VAN DEN ZEGEL et al. - Page 5




                Appeal No. 1997-1834                                                                             Page 5                  
                Application No. 08/267,527                                                                                               


                correction of a recognizable error is permissible and will not run afoul of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                       

                paragraph.  In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 1206, 170 USPQ 268, 272 (CCPA 1971).                                               

                        Here, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the inclusion of the              

                oxygen atom outside the bracket of the recurring unit was an error.  In fact, the Examiner herself                       

                understood the nature of the error before Appellants attempted to correct it.  See the paragraph                         

                bridging pages 3 and 4 of the First Office Action on the Merits mailed December 1, 1994 (Paper No.                       

                5) in which the Examiner states:                                                                                         

                               The recurring units of the formulae (Ia) and (Ib) recited in claim 1 are disclosed on                    
                        page 3, lines 1-20, of the instant specification.  Specific examples of the compounds of the                     
                        invention comprising said recurring units are disclosed on page 4.  In particular, note                          
                        examples (I.1) and (I.2), comprising recurring units of a polyoxyethylene having a thioether                     
                        side chain, and the variable “n” indicating the number of recurring units; note that the                         
                        oxygen atom to the left of the open bracket, “[”, is bonded to a hydrogen atom and is not                        
                        part of the “recurring unit”.  The specification fails to provide an adequate written                            
                        description of the polyoxyethylene recurring units by including the oxygen atom to the left                      
                        of the open bracket, “[”, in the formula of the “recurring unit”.                                                

                Furthermore, as Appellants point out in the Brief at page 5, if the recurring units were drawn out as                    

                originally designated, there would be an oxygen to oxygen bond in the resultant compound.  Such a                        

                compound would not be a polyoxyethylene compound as described in the Specification.  Furthermore,                        

                compound I.3 exemplified on page 4 of the Specification would not be within the genus of the structural                  

                formula.  The Examiner’s argument with respect to I.3 is duly noted.  However, in this case, the fact                    

                that I.3 contains an additional error simply indicates that two corrections are required.  The presence of               









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007